Our Future Ambitions

My Personal Reflection on Science, Transformation, and The Future

By Dr James Murphy, Director of Research & Science BAT

Dear Reader,

There are moments in history when the direction of travel for public health can be shaped for generations. I believe tobacco and nicotine policy is now at one of those defining moments.

For decades, BAT was a business that sold only cigarettes. That history is part of the sector we come from, and it is precisely why the transformation now underway matters. If our ambition is to build A Better Tomorrow™ and accelerate progress towards a smokeless world, success cannot be measured only by what we sell. It must also be measured by what we replace, the choices we create for adult smokers, and the impact those choices have on reducing harm.

The health risks of smoking are well established. The question is whether tobacco control should continue to rely primarily on prevention and cessation, or whether Tobacco Harm Reduction should also be embedded as a core tenet of public health strategy on tobacco and nicotine. I believe the potential benefit of doing so is profound. Prevention and cessation must remain central, but adults who would otherwise continue smoking should not be left with cigarettes as their only option.

Sweden provides a compelling proof of principle for Tobacco Harm Reduction. It shows what can happen when adult consumers have access to acceptable smokeless alternatives and smoking is displaced at population level. The Swedish experience should not be treated as a simple template for every country, but it should be taken seriously as evidence that policy can influence the speed and scale of movement away from cigarettes. Other countries are also contributing important evidence. In the USA, the UK, Japan and New Zealand, different forms of smokeless or lower-risk^*† profile nicotine products have been adopted within different regulatory and cultural contexts. These examples are not identical, and they should not be overstated, but collectively they reinforce an important point: when adult smokers have access to alternatives that are acceptable, appropriately regulated and supported by evidence, movement away from cigarettes can accelerate.

At this point in the history of tobacco and nicotine policy, society faces two broad pathways. One pathway maintains the status quo: banning, restricting or discouraging smokeless alternatives, despite their potential as substitutes for adult smokers who would otherwise continue smoking.

The other pathway embeds Tobacco Harm Reduction within public health strategy, permitting responsible access to scientifically substantiated smokeless alternatives alongside prevention, cessation, youth protection and robust regulation. This is not a call to weaken tobacco control. It is a call to make it more complete.

As a scientist by training and a business leader by responsibility, I have always held a simple principle: science should be judged on its quality, transparency, reproducibility and scientific merit, not on who funded it. At BAT, we place only highly stewarded, rigorously assessed and quality-controlled products on the market. We welcome challenge because challenge strengthens science. But public health does not advance when evidence is dismissed before it is examined. Science progresses through scrutiny, discussion, replication and transparency, not exclusion. Transparency is more than a commitment; it is a principle. For over two decades, we have welcomed scientists, regulators, public health experts and other stakeholders to our Southampton campus to engage directly with our science and the evidence underpinning Tobacco Harm Reduction.

Our invitation remains unchanged: “Come and see the science for yourself. Meet the scientists. Examine the technologies. Ask difficult questions. Challenge the evidence. Join the conversation.”

You do not need to agree with us. But meaningful progress begins with open dialogue and a shared willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

We are at a pivotal moment in public health. Our responsibility is clear: follow the evidence, embrace challenge, and focus relentlessly on what matters most: Reducing the harm caused by smoking.

That, to me, is what truly matters.

Dr James Murphy

My Personal Reflection on A Smokeless World

By Kingsley Wheaton, Chief Corporate Officer

Dear Reader,

My colleague, Dr James Murphy, ends his reflections precisely where I would like to start.

“You do not have to agree with us. But meaningful progress begins with open dialogue.”

And that was always the Omni™ invitation. Review the evidence. Join the conversation. A conversation where we would be wise to first recognise where we agree, and then set about resolving and finding common ground on those areas where we may disagree.

Sadly, that is not going to be well served by the exclusionary tactics of those that disagree with us. Time and again, James and myself – and countless others – have made the offer for transparent and open dialogue to those who may not always share our opinion. That is how society brokers disagreement into eventual agreement. It is for millennia how the wise and the pragmatic have solved knotty problems. This challenge should be no different.

So, what if the world is not ‘wise and pragmatic’? Where does that leave us? Some may argue the opposite of ‘pragmatic’ is ‘dogmatic’ and indeed one can see examples of where ideology and dogma have been allowed to trump the ever-growing evidence base.

Article 5.3 (of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) is too often interpreted in ways that discourage scientific dialogue and consideration of evidence, even where that evidence may be relevant to public health decision-making.

Omni™ has come a long way in two years and it is with some pride that we release a major upgrade and launch Omni™ 2.0.

We have listened to feedback, taken account of alternative views and attempted, as far as we are able, to update Omni™ to answer those questions that have emerged, or developed, since the initial launch in September 2024.

In some ways, it is easier to define what Omni™ is not than what it is. It is not a book, a publication or website. Although it can be all of those things.

For us, it is a manifesto and a mandate. A manifesto for change and a mandate for action. As we grapple with the challenges of becoming a predominantly smokeless business by 2035, Omni™ is our scientific and regulatory engagement North Star. A star that guides us and allows us to focus our stakeholder engagement energy, both where it matters and, with content that matters.

One wonders where this dialogue will be by the time of Omni™ 3.0 in years to come? Time will tell. One can only hope that the step-forward that is Omni™ 2.0 will have made a difference.

The weight of evidence for Tobacco Harm Reduction is indeed mounting. The question for regulators and policy makers is can they afford to wait? To chart a course of precaution, to naively lump all nicotine products together – ignoring whether or not there is combustion – and await the likely decades-from-now epidemiology, sacrificing potentially meaningful public health progress for hesitation and inertia?

Europe is a case in point. The debate surrounding the revision of tobacco and nicotine policy across the 27 member states, including the Tobacco Products Directive, is intensifying – and the mood music is not encouraging.

By 2040, the EU set itself a target to reduce smoking prevalence rates to 5% from today’s average of 24%. However, since the current Tobacco Products Directive was introduced in 2016 there has only been a ~2% reduction^[16],[17]. If it’s serious about this objective, something needs to change.

Thankfully, it doesn’t need to look too far. Sweden is well on track to becoming smokefree and provides a real-world example that the rest of Europe can and should follow. In a political union such as Europe, you would want to study the best-in-class, make sure those solutions ‘travel’ and implement with speed with a concept that has demonstrated, more than anything else, that it simply works.

So, our hope, indeed my hope, is that Omni™ 2.0 contributes in some small way to productive discussions. Discussions where evidence is reviewed, the findings followed, and pragmatism and common-sense are encouraged to prevail. That is the pathway to a Smokefree Europe in 2040 and the answers to that conundrum, paradoxically, already exist within Europe’s borders.

As I reflect on 30 years in the tobacco and nicotine industry I have never been more excited, and yet, frustrated at the same time.

Excited because we are building pace and making big strides towards our ambition to Build A Smokeless World. Frustrated because, despite the science and real-world experiences, progress is often slowed by longstanding perceptions and deeply entrenched positions that are increasingly difficult to reconcile with emerging evidence.

Reasonable people can review the same body of evidence and reach different conclusions. The challenge is not that disagreement exists. The challenge is ensuring that disagreement remains rooted in evidence, and that new evidence is assessed openly as it emerges. And beyond that, ideally, that good-faith, open-minded dialogue ensues.

My wish then is that the clarion call of Omni™ be heeded. Review the evidence, join the conversation. As James reflected, meaningful progress starts with open dialogue. We continue to stand ready to have that dialogue with policy makers, regulators, investors and scientists anywhere, at any time.

That is the promise of Omni™.

Kingsley Wheaton
Chief Corporate Officer